Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />';': :-,1 Il <br />':'O"J t <br /> <br />Kansas declined to proceed further with review of the amended operating principles until such <br /> <br /> <br />time as there were legally binding commitments by the City of Trinidad, the District, the United <br /> <br /> <br />States and the State of Colorado that the amended operating principles in the future would be <br /> <br /> <br />enforceable as part of the Arkansas River Compact. This is an unacceptable condition to all <br /> <br /> <br />parties other than Kansas. <br /> <br /> <br />In March and April of 1993, the Colorado Water Conservation Board on behalf of <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado representatives of the ARCA, the Colorado State Engineer and the City of Trinidad, all <br /> <br /> <br />asked Reclamation to approve the amended operating principles as Kansas was unreasonably <br /> <br /> <br />withholding approval of the amended operating principles. In response to this request, <br /> <br /> <br />Reclamation by letter dated June 9, 1993, advised Kansas that Reclamation did not believe Kansas <br /> <br /> <br />had a valid objection to approval of the amended operating principles and that if Kansas did not <br /> <br /> <br />provide comments within 30 days of the date of the letter, Reclamation planned to approve <br /> <br /> <br />amended operating principles as recommended in the 1988 report of the review of operating <br /> <br /> <br />principles. Reclamation received a response from Kansas dated July 8, 1993 on July 9, 1993 <br /> <br /> <br />with comments and a request that Reclamation not approve the proposed amended operating <br /> <br /> <br />principles. <br /> <br /> <br />Kansas' letters of July 8 and August 4, 1993 to Reclamation alleged additional violations <br /> <br /> <br />of the operating principles and the directives ofthe Colorado State Engineer's letter of April 27, <br /> <br /> <br />1989. In response to these allegations, the Colorado State Engineer reviewed the records and <br /> <br /> <br />determined that the District had not stored more than 20,000 acre feet including carryover storage <br /> <br /> <br />in anyone year under the Model storage rights as alleged by Kansas since November 1, 1988. <br /> <br /> <br />However, the Colorado State Engineer also concluded that stock water releases during the non- <br /> <br />5 <br />